Leaked & MemoGated

This morning Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, resigned his post over the scandal known as “memogate,” whereby Pakistani-American businessman Mansoor Ijaz alleged that he was asked by Amb. Haqqani to pass a memo to former chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, asking for help in reigning in Pakistan’s military establishment. But while Haqqani’s resignation may signal an end to this episode, the prior evolution of events was nothing short of a witch hunt.

The ‘witch’ in question varies depending on whom you speak to. If you’re a member of Pakistan’s opposition parties, Haqqani’s actions were an act of treason, and his resignation is only a further admission of guilt. How dare he, they demand to know, ask for foreign (American) help to control Pakistan’s military? How dare he be secretive about said actions?

If you’re one of those in the ruling party, Mansoor Ijaz is a lying conspirator, a man not to be trusted. The revelation of the memo, they claimed, was really just an excuse to target democracy, to vilify the PPP government. Haqqani’s resignation was not an admission of guilt, but a sacrifice in honor of said democracy.

In the serial drama also known as Pakistani politics, all the key elements have been in place – intrigue, cloak-and-dagger conspiracy, treason, and secrecy. From the outset, it plays out much like an episode of Game of Thrones, where in their thirst for power, the main actors all simultaneously destroy each other (or themselves). Except this is real life, and we’ve seen this episode numerous times before. Politicians are intent on leveraging “memogate” for their own party ambitions in anticipation of the upcoming elections, while the military sits pretty on the sideline, their hands clean of the public mudslinging. As is often the case, dangling a threat to sovereignty or to Pakistan’s security is enough to stir a feeding frenzy.

For those of us who read the memo in question, who perused through the BlackBerry messages exchanged between Haqqani and Ijaz, and who have read every imaginable op-ed and interview on the controversy, one thing is abundantly clear: even with Haqqani’s resignation, we still are not entirely sure what happened. It is possible that we may never know. We should concern ourselves not with asking hypothetical questions, but asking the right questions. What constitutes treason within the Pakistani narrative? And why are many challenges to the current civil-military status quo met with such accusations?

In the case of this incident, Haqqani’s alleged actions were called treasonous and unpatriotic because he is said to have attempted to challenge the security establishment, to hand over Pakistan’s sovereignty to America. As Fasi Zaka noted in his op-ed for the Express Tribune the memo sought to allow “another state a unilateral deal of internal policy actions without any legal authority [that] bypasses all codes of conduct.” Extra negative points if that foreign hand happens to be American.

But shouldn’t we then place other purported back door dealings under similar scrutiny? Why do we continue to be incensed by the alleged attempts by a civilian politician to undermine the security establishment but fail to express similar outrage if the same security establishment undermines a civilian government, whether it be through military coups, backchannel talks with militants to retain strategic depth in Pakistan, or even purported deals permitting a U.S. operation against Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil?

The civil-military imbalance, as also noted by Mosharraf Zaidi for Foreign Policy, is the primary reason behind this disconnect. Pakistan’s military, despite its flaws, has historically projected a stronger and more resolute image than any civilian regime. The national sentiment has long bought into this perception. The charge of treason against former Ambassador Haqqani is, therefore, subjective, laced with emotion, and used conveniently in the semantics of political pot shots to desperately curry favor among the masses. Treason makes for a good sound bite. But in throwing around such accusations, we lose sight of the bigger picture.

Haqqani’s resignation today will be viewed as an admission of guilt to some and a sacrifice to others. But the bigger issue has been left untouched. In terms of Pakistan’s broader civil-military relations, the sign is clear — cross the military, and you will get burned. And as the mudslinging continued, it became increasingly clear that the only players getting dirty and tainted were the politicians. Long live democracy.

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

12 Responses

Simple and concise awaiting time for a coup. Kalsoom Ummah, is behind this not
so. Much internal military corruption inept. Zardari has show is placid weakness! Alllowing America to dictate foreign policy. Whom be the next leader? Military decides! Can’t wait insolvent govenment we need. Strong leader exile the dynasties!

I mean, I’m not *too* surprised, given that her life was under threat in Pakistan about her comments on the blasphemy laws, and I think she’s articulate, well-educated, and eloquent. Of anyone that Zardari could have chosen next, she is his best bet. What do you think?

I too think she is the best candidate, she is also more palatable to the military – though the fact that we need someone palatable to the military makes me sick!

She has a hard job ahead of her with our toxic affair with Umreeka at its most toxic. Ithink she will represent Pakistan’s case well in the US, and her liberal credentials should make it easier for the Americans to take to her.

Sorry to butt in and deep apologies if this sounds sarcastic and/or rude…it is not meant to be. I ask most sincerely – what exactly is Pakistan’s case that you expect SR to represent in the US? Is there a consensus on what that case truly needs to be? I mean, there would be different views on this I am sure but will she ever get the chance to represent the true case – for Pakistan to be freed for internal and external feudal tendencies?

The totality of evidence and data so far available in the public domain suggests that Haqqani did indeed invite American intervention in Pakistan’s internal affairs. And given how close Haqqani and his wife have been to President Asif Ali Zardari, it is highly likely that this was done with Zardari’s personal blessing. The revelations in Ijaz Mansoor’s BlackBerry transcripts also make explicit reference to “the circumstances that led to May 1 (US raid in Abbottabad) and your (Haqqani’s) role in all that”.

As essential goal of “Plausible Deniability” is that, in the event of public exposure, the lower ranks end up taking the fall to protect the people at the top. In this case, Ambassador Haqqani has taken the fall to protect his boss President Asif Zardari, at least in the short term. Zardari may survive this blow for now, but he will be a significantly weakened leader for the rest of the current term. And it is highly unlikely that he would be able to retain his office beyond his current term which will end in 2013.